In Alabama, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are often challenged in three areas: (1) trial counsel ineffectiveness, (2) appellate counsel ineffectiveness, and (3) pleas counsel ineffectiveness. Each area of ineffectiveness have similar requirements. First, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below ordinary attorney representation. Second, the defendant must prove his, or her, case was prejudiced, or harmed, in some manner due to counsel’s conduct. The case of Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) provides excellent guidance when challenging any ineffectiveness claim.

The prejudicial component is what differs most between trial, appellate and plea counsel’s ineffectiveness. In general terms, establishing trial counsel prejudice requires the defendant to prove that had counsel been effective, the outcome of the trial or sentence would have been different.

For appellate counsel, prejudice is usually established by proving counsel abandoned a clearly stronger issue in comparison to issues which were presented in the appellate brief. The case of Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel.

For a defendant who entered into a plea agreement and challenges counsel’s effectiveness, the defendant usually must establish that had counsel been effective, the plea agreement would not have been accepted and the defendant would have instead proceeded to trial. The case of Hill v. Lockhart, 106 S.Ct. 366 (1985) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of counsel surrounding the acceptance of a plea agreement.

Now, let’s identify where you can find the State’s requirements for challenging counsel’s ineffectiveness in each of these three areas.

Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

For a criminal defendant in Alabama to obtain relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the defendant must prove: 1) that counsel did not provide reasonably effective assistance and, 2) that counsel’s deficient performance caused prejudice. It is insufficient to claim prejudice without providing specific facts indicating how the defendant was prejudiced. See: Ex parte Green 15 So.3d 489 (Ala. 2008). To prevail on any ineffective assistance of counsel claim, both of these requirements must be met.

A defendant’s attorney’s performance is measured against an objective standard of reasonableness. A determination of the reasonableness of counsel’s actions will be decided on a case by case basis.

To satisfy the two requirements, an Alabama defendant first identifies the specific acts or omissions he or she alleges were not the result of reasonable professional judgment on counsel’s part. Second, a defendant must show that these acts or omissions fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. After a petitioner meets this burden, he or she must then show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See: McBurnett v. State, 266 So.3d 122 (Ala. 2018).

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in Alabama, the defendant must show: 1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and, 2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See: Yeomans v. State, 195 So.3d 1018 (Ala. 2013).

To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in Alabama, the defendant must show: 1) that counsel’s When analyzing the performance of appellate counsel, it’s important to recognize that an attorney is not required to argue every possible issue on appeal. An appellate attorney need not, and should not, raise every non-frivolous claim. Rather, counsel should consider all available issues and present the claims which maximize the likelihood of appellate success.

Ineffective Assistance of Plea Counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of plea counsel in Alabama, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance caused prejudiced. The prejudice requirement can be satisfied by establishing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See: Abercrombie v. State, 215 So.3d 586 (Ala. 2014).

To learn more about ineffective assistance of counsel, I encourage you to read my post titled, What is ineffective assistance of counsel?